Jon, I believe you must learn to accept that virtual reality is more like real life than you may think. If you were to walk up to someone on the street who was engaging in a behavior that was against your personal moral beliefs and tell him what you thought of that behavior, you could be arrested. We, as residents of SL, have a right not to be accosted by others who want to impose their personal beliefs on us. (This cuts both ways, too; I'm sure you'd be rather irritated if a Pagan starting badgering you about your beliefs, and you'd have every right to file a complaint.)
I realize that many Christians believe they are above the law when it comes to spreading the word of their lord. It's almost a case of wanting to be martyred for asserting their beliefs because they feel so strongly that they are in the right and are backed by their god. I haven't met you in-world, Jon, but I'm sensing a bit of this aura around you from your forum posts.
If you want to influence people in SL to go along with your way of thinking, Jon, become the kind of person who is valued and adds something to the community other than forums rants on the supremecy of Christianity.
And in regards to getting a TOS violation warning, a lot of the people in SL believe that these warnings are far too vague and don't explain what the recipient did to earn one. The Lindens know how we feel about this, but I sort of doubt they are going to be changing their system any time soon, unfortunately.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Community Standards: Tolerance |
|
|
Beryl Greenacre
Big Scaredy-Baby
Join date: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 1,312
|
06-17-2004 11:15
_____________________
Swell Second Life: Menswear by Beryl Greenacre
Miramare 105, 82/ Aqua 192, 112/ Image Reflections Design, Freedom 121, 121 |
|
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
|
06-17-2004 11:16
Jon,
You realize that if you had just 'let it be' eventually people would've forgotten about it.. for the mostpart anyway. Yet, you keep bringing it up, which is annoying to say the least. I think you enjoy this. |
|
Olympia Rebus
Muse of Chaos
Join date: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 1,831
|
06-17-2004 11:29
Originally posted by Kats Kothari God Hates Shrimp Just trying to lighten the mood with some silly humor. Now can't we all just get along?  Bwaahaahaaa Strictly speaking, eating shrimp is an abomination. Call your congressman today Seriously thought I hope it's clear that the website is satirizing extremists and not people who abstain from shrimp. While I'm rambling, here's some examples of tolerence and non tolerance *Your friend invites you to a BBQ. You're a vegetarian. Tolernent: "No thanks, I don't eat meat" Less Tolerent "Uggh. How could you eat that stuff? Don't you know how badly factory-farmed animals are treated? Don't you know red meat may be linked to cancer!?" *Your pal moves in with boyfriend. You think living together outside of mariage is a bad idea. Tolerant: Keep your mouth shut unless your friend asks what you think about the issue. If asked, say it's against your religion and/or you personally wouldn't do it Less Tolerent: "That's sleazy! Don't you know that live-in couples have a higher divorce rate than people who lived apart before getting married?!" *Your pal invites you to a Christian weekend retreat. You're an athiest Tolerant: Politely decline. If asked why explain that you appreciate the offer but aren't interested, or that you find religious matters very personal Less Tolerant: "I don't believe in that crap. You should be devoting your time to something more constructive instead of this religious ooga booga" Note that none of the tolerent responses agree with or embrace the issue in question, while the less tolerent responses involve personal attacks, self-rightiousness, and unsoliceted lectures. They're rude. In each of these examples, the intolerence lies not in the person's opinion but in the way they expressed it. Speaking of self-rightiousness, I better get of the soapbox with my unsolicted lecture...  |
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
06-17-2004 12:32
Originally posted by Chip Midnight Jon, I'm guessing that whatever happened that earned you the TOS violation was in-world, not here on the forums. If it's because of any of your forum posts I'd have a problem with that. You're certainly not guilty of anything on the forums that I wouldn't also be guilty of in reverse. Honestly, I'll say it again, I've never bashed anyone. The only time I've come close to doing anything hateful--but still didn't display hatred, just came close hehe (actually I didn't, I just argued a bit with him/her for a bit)--was when I got neg'd by a newbie and I pleaded with him/her to reverse it till I finally gave up and updated my profile explaining why (s)he neg'd me. That's all I can think of, honestly. In-game I have absolutely no interests but to be a friend to everyone. I've teased a few people (Mr. Miller and the broken balloon .. ROFL), but it was all in good fun and never meant to cause grief. |
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
06-17-2004 12:33
Originally posted by Juro Kothari Jon, You realize that if you had just 'let it be' eventually people would've forgotten about it.. for the mostpart anyway. Yet, you keep bringing it up, which is annoying to say the least. I think you enjoy this. I only brought it up because LL accused me of displaying "hatred toward other people or communities", and I remain shocked by the accusation! |
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
06-17-2004 13:00
Originally posted by Princess Medici You telling people why what they are doing is wrong could hinder people's ability to feel free to express themselves. How is that not a violation of my right to express myself? It'd be one thing if I attempted to stop it, but expressing my own views is no different than what others are expressing for themselves. |
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
06-17-2004 13:02
OK well here's one other possibility, in which case it would just be a misunderstanding.
I was trying to create a broadcast microphone / speaker system so that my gathering place could be shared in chat with other gathering places. I forgot about the Privacy standards, which now that I've been reminded of them make PERFECT sense and I regret doing this, but I dropped a microphone into a public space to test and see if it worked across sims. Then I went back and deleted it. Pretty soon I found in my e-mail Inbox "You have been found in violation of the Community Standards and/or TOS: Privacy - listening to others' conversations without their knowing" (or whatever the wording). Ahhh, yes, that makes perfect sense, so I replied, "Understood. Thanks!" That won't happen again. Well that notice came right alongside the notice saying that I was engaging in "expressions of hatred toward other real world individuals or communities". Hm... maybe they saw this technical test as a form of expression of hatred toward people? (ROFL) I honestly don't have any idea what was said in the text being broadcasted to me as I wasn't paying attention to the content. I think I heard "Hang on a sec" a lot but that's all I remember. If this is all it was, I am relieved. On the other hand, I think it's just silly that LL would take such a ridiculous application to the word "hateful"... it's not merely too broad, it's frivolous. |
|
Catherine Omega
Geometry Ninja
Join date: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 2,053
|
06-17-2004 13:59
All right, let me try a different tack here...
Jon, if we can perhaps set aside your disagreement with the Lindens' definition of 'tolerance', at least for a moment, consider this test: If, when discussing homosexuality, you replace the word "gay" with "black", does the phrase become offensive? If the answer is yes, it was already offensive. _____________________
|
|
Jellin Pico
Grumpy Oldbie
Join date: 3 Aug 2003
Posts: 1,037
|
06-17-2004 14:04
Originally posted by Catherine Omega All right, let me try a different tack here... Jon, if we can perhaps set aside your disagreement with the Lindens' definition of 'tolerance', at least for a moment, consider this test: If, when discussing homosexuality, you replace the word "gay" with "black", does the phrase become offensive? If the answer is yes, it was already offensive. /Applaud wildly _____________________
It's Official! Jellin, you are soooooo FIC! Fabulous, Intelligent and Cute |
|
Darwin Appleby
I Was Beaten With Satan
Join date: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
06-17-2004 14:28
Originally posted by Catherine Omega All right, let me try a different tack here... Jon, if we can perhaps set aside your disagreement with the Lindens' definition of 'tolerance', at least for a moment, consider this test: If, when discussing homosexuality, you replace the word "gay" with "black", does the phrase become offensive? If the answer is yes, it was already offensive. Horrah, good point! _____________________
Touche.
|
|
Daemioth Sklar
Lifetime Member
Join date: 30 Jul 2003
Posts: 944
|
06-17-2004 14:36
(I'm not going to jump in on this one... but as a general ettiquette I thought I'd mention that any time you edit your posts you should place a notation at the bottom stating what you 'generally' did... for example, "edited for spelling" "edited for grammar" "edited for wording" ... thought I'd throw that in.)
_____________________
 |
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
Clarification from LL
06-17-2004 14:52
OK, so my post of this thread is hereby documented and proven relevant.
Hi John, I'm sorry this is a bit vague -- this notice is in response to several complaints from Residents about comments you've made in-world, notably in reference to gays. We value all viewpoints in Second Life, and strongly support everyone's right to speak their minds. Some of you word choices, however, may have been a bit coarse and offensive to other Residents. Best, Linden Lab (emphasis mine) My response: For the record, I've said NOTHING about gays in-world. Ever. However, if you can show me a transcript of chat that proves me wrong, I would appreciate the correction. Edited for emphasis: "in-world" |
|
His Grace
Emperor Of Second Life
Join date: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 158
|
06-17-2004 15:04
Originally posted by Jon Morgan The difference here is that I have no evidence, reason, proof, or anything else, that would indicate that black people are black as the result of choices that they made or that were made by others who mistreated them as they were growing up. Nor do I see black people portraying a behavior that is contrary to the fundamental laws of nature. Nor do I believe that Jesus could change black people into another color even if they begged Him to change them. On the other hand, I kind of worry about people who have a habit of tanning too much. okay replace the word "gay" with "muslim" if you must. * * * "fundamental laws of nature" as you believe them to be. not necessarily as they are. here are some alternative beliefs: - http://www.mccchurch.org/spirsexuality.htm - http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc20uuanswr.pdf _____________________
I am not interested in happiness for all humanity,
but happiness for each of us. - Boris Vian |
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
06-17-2004 15:21
Originally posted by His Grace okay replace the word "gay" with "muslim" if you must. Well in that case, no, I don't think it would be offensive to question Muslim faith, to answer the question. A lot of you have questioned my Christian faith and I don't have a problem with that as long as you don't treat *ME* disrespectfully for that reason alone. The path one chooses to make is not necessarily who he is, as in the case of a black or yellow or green person from birth, and therefore observations of various paths are not hatred of people or people groups. [Edited: added "for that reason alone"] |
|
Catherine Omega
Geometry Ninja
Join date: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 2,053
|
06-17-2004 15:23
Originally posted by Jon Morgan The difference here is that I have no evidence, reason, proof, or anything else, that would indicate that black people are black as the result of choices that they made or that were made by others who mistreated them as they were growing up. Nor do I see black people portraying a behavior that is contrary to the fundamental laws of nature. Okay, but that's your personal opinion. Someone could just as easily (and plenty of people do!) believe that ethnicity determines right from wrong. There's plenty of pseudo-science backing that up, too. Were they to express their honest belief, they would still be intolerant. Now, you talk about choices. At this point, I'm sure many people would be eager to point out that there really isn't anyone that's ever stopped being gay any more than a straight person could make the decision to no longer be attracted to the opposite sex, and so on. However, --and I hope everyone's following me here-- it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice. That's right. Nature? Nurture? Concious decision? It doesn't matter. The only practical fact anyone has to be aware of is that there are people who are attracted to their same sex, and that there always have been. Consider religion. Your religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong. The fact that you can back up your opinion with "well, it's unhealthy and the Bible says it's wrong" is no more valid than someone attempting to use bad statistics and psuedo-science to back up an assertion that, say, Christianity is unhealthy and wrong. If I were to get up on a soapbox and espouse the view that Christians everywhere are living an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle of denial and repression, --even if I believed it-- that would be exactly the same as doing the same about homosexuality. Tolerance is not simply about acknowledging that others believe things that you may disagree with and then explaining how your belief differs from their own. Even if to do so is fundamentally at odds with your religion, you have to accept that other people's belief systems are none of your business. I don't care if someone follows any particular religion or not, but even if I did care, it still wouldn't be my business. Your right to express yourself freely ends at the point where it inhibits other people's right to do the same. _____________________
|
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
06-17-2004 15:27
Originally posted by Catherine Omega Your right to express yourself freely ends at the point where it inhibits other people's right to do the same. Agreed, but again I disagree that expressing my opinions about the paths people choose--particularly when I don't even assign people to that path (such as talking about homosexuality in general, rather than "gays" --is in any way, shape, or form, an inhibitation of people's rights to choose that path. That is just a ludicrous idea to me... it is downright silly. |
|
His Grace
Emperor Of Second Life
Join date: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 158
|
06-17-2004 15:35
Originally posted by His Grace okay replace the word "gay" with "muslim" if you must. Originally posted by Jon Morgan Well in that case, no, I don't think it would be offensive to question Muslim faith, to answer the question. let's see what happens: Jon Morgan: In any case, Daemioth, my error was not in using the word "gay" to describe something bad, but to describe how I see "gayness", as in having a distorted sense of gender and sexuality. However, I agree that I made a mistake and did not consider that homosexual people would be here. becomes: In any case, XXX, my error was not in using the word "Muslim" to describe something bad, but to describe how I see "Muslimness", as in having a distorted sense of god. However, I agree that I made a mistake and did not consider that Muslim people would be here. changed words in italics. _____________________
I am not interested in happiness for all humanity,
but happiness for each of us. - Boris Vian |
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
06-17-2004 15:39
Originally posted by His Grace In any case, XXX, my error was not in using the word "Muslim" to describe something bad, but to describe how I see "Muslimness", as in having a distorted sense of god. However, I agree that I made a mistake and did not consider that Muslim people would be here. That's exactly what I'd say. I don't see hatred there, nor intolerance. It's an expression of my own observation of a particular path, and in this case it was relevant because I was describing how a male avatar was looking femalish, therefore it looked liked distorted sexuality, therefore it didn't look "straight". Call me stupid, disagree with my worldviews, I could care less, but that is not hatred toward gays (nor Muslims in your case) no matter how you look at it. God loves them all just the same, I just disagree with some paths and find them to be distorted. What does that have to do with hating people? Edit: corrected spelling |
|
Jellin Pico
Grumpy Oldbie
Join date: 3 Aug 2003
Posts: 1,037
|
06-17-2004 15:50
Funny, but for some strange reason I have this terrible urge to hang out in the welcome area for awhile.
Anyone want to join me? _____________________
It's Official! Jellin, you are soooooo FIC! Fabulous, Intelligent and Cute |
|
Olympia Rebus
Muse of Chaos
Join date: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 1,831
|
06-17-2004 15:52
Originally posted by His Grace okay replace the word "gay" with "muslim" if you must. * * * "fundamental laws of nature" as you believe them to be. not necessarily as they are. here are some alternative beliefs: - http://www.mccchurch.org/spirsexuality.htm - http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc20uuanswr.pdf ...Or replace "gay" with "left handed." A left handed person can choose to use his right hand- but he's still more dexterious with his left hand and was probably born that way. It's true that the "typical" human being is right handed, but that doesn't mean all humans are. Plenty of people are born naturally left handed. I doubt anyone went down the path of left-handness because he lacked strong right-handed influences in childhood or because he was somehow corrupted. |
|
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
|
06-17-2004 15:52
Jon,
You should really try to leave Hanford once in a while. Homosexuals do not choose to be what they are. No more than you choose to be heterosexual. Homosexuality is also found throughout the animal kingdom - it is not limited to homosapiens. You might also do a little more research into human sexuality. There has been some talk about whether there really is simply two sexes (M and F) or if we are comprised of 'mostly' one or another. I'll see if I can find some links on that for your reading. One final thought Jon, I think what most people find annoying about this is your "I don't hate you, I just find you distorted and wrong as dictated by my beliefs in god". Well, not all of us believe in your god. |
|
Lorelei Patel
was here
Join date: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 1,940
|
06-17-2004 16:35
I don't know why I'm wading into this pool, but here I go...
Originally posted by Beryl Greenacre If you were to walk up to someone on the street who was engaging in a behavior that was against your personal moral beliefs and tell him what you thought of that behavior, you could be arrested. I don't know where you live, but where I am (and pretty much anywhere in the U.S.) that is not the case. You can SAY anything you want to people, short of yelling fire in a theater or libeling them. There is no constitutional right to go through life unoffended. There has never been such a right, and I sincerely hope there will never be any such animal. We, as residents of SL, have a right not to be accosted by others who want to impose their personal beliefs on us. (This cuts both ways, too; I'm sure you'd be rather irritated if a Pagan starting badgering you about your beliefs, and you'd have every right to file a complaint.) What constitutes "imposing"? Dictionary definition of "to impose": 1. To place or set (as in a burden, tax, fine); 2. To force (oneself, one's precence or will, etc.) on another or others without right or invitation; 3. To pass off, palm off, foist; 4: To arrange in a frame in the propoer order of printing; 5: to place, put, deposit; 6. to lay (the hands) on, as in ordaining. I've never met or spoken to Jon before, but I haven't heard how he's "imposed" his beliefs on anyone. He spoke his beliefs -- but then, so has EVERYONE in this thread. And if that is imposing, then everyone here is guilty of it. I realize that many Christians believe they are above the law when it comes to spreading the word of their lord. It's almost a case of wanting to be martyred for asserting their beliefs because they feel so strongly that they are in the right and are backed by their god. OK. We're getting to the meat of what bothers me here. I have heard more intolerance in the name of tolerance than I can shake a stick at. To my eyes, what was written above was very -- pardon the phrase -- holier than thou. Tolerance is a two way street and it runs left AND right. Here's a sample of what I see as anti-Christian/religious postings on the forums: * We have crosses for every martyr. Do you need to make a lasting statement of your faith? Are you wrongfully persecuted just like your savior? We feel your pain! (and his) * The big ol problem with your folk is when you try to get others to abide by your standards. ... It'd all be so much easier if you kept your standards to yourself. * God is a cruel and intolerant bigot, but he loves you. He thinks you're a worthless sinner who needs salvation, but he loves you. ... * Er, and you know him (God) personally? You've spoken to him? ... If so, might I suggest heavy medication or counseling. * I for one say that anyone who believes this sort of nonsense is incapable of being resoned with. * (Jon said: Yes, I believe that the cross of Jesus and the provision of the Holy Spirit are exclusive to a person's salvation) No, Jon.... in MY opinion it makes you stupid. I'm not even Christian, but I do believe Jesus said something about a mote of dust and a woodbeam once. Good words to keep in mind. |
|
His Grace
Emperor Of Second Life
Join date: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 158
|
06-17-2004 17:40
Originally posted by Jon Morgan That's exactly what I'd say. I don't see hatred there, nor intolerance. so let me see if i've got this right. "my error was not in using the word "Muslim" to describe something bad" so it's not an error use the word "Muslim" to describe something as bad? _____________________
I am not interested in happiness for all humanity,
but happiness for each of us. - Boris Vian |
|
His Grace
Emperor Of Second Life
Join date: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 158
|
06-17-2004 17:50
Originally posted by Lorelei Patel OK. We're getting to the meat of what bothers me here. I have heard more intolerance in the name of tolerance than I can shake a stick at. To my eyes, what was written above was very -- pardon the phrase -- holier than thou. Tolerance is a two way street and it runs left AND right. people like jon make christians as a whole look bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant. most christians aren't. the problem is that it's easy to bash all christians for the example jon sets; it is unfair and wrong, but it's easy to see why. unfortunately, jon is not an untypical exemplar. so, as wrong as it is, it's easy to for people to extrapolate from jon's example that all christians are like him. but most christians aren't like jon. the thing that irks me is that jon deliberately confounds his personal behavioars and beliefs with those of all christians. he presents his personal beliefs as those of any right-thinking christian. and again, his example of christianity is not in the majority examples i've ever seen. oh sure robertson and falwell and all those big mouthed bigots are well known, but they don't speak for all christians. it is wrong to paint all christians the same. _____________________
I am not interested in happiness for all humanity,
but happiness for each of us. - Boris Vian |
|
His Grace
Emperor Of Second Life
Join date: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 158
|
Re: Last post
06-17-2004 18:16
Originally posted by Jon Morgan The most I've ever done is say "that animation on me looks gay", once again, I was not bashing gays but pointing out that it made me, a male avatar, look like I was trying to look feminine, and I know of no other word to describe such behavior except "gay". From now on, though, I'll use "disagreeably feminine", okay? If LL is going to say next that the forums are considered in-world, there's a lesson for all of us to learn and not just myself. [edit: added "disagreeably" to "feminine"] [edit: bumped to end of thread] [edit: "bashed" to accused and "bashing" to "making hateful remarks" open mouth. insert foot. _____________________
I am not interested in happiness for all humanity,
but happiness for each of us. - Boris Vian |